pilots not giving correct calls on contact

[cxi]

We had a discusion at work the other day. Our managers in atc investigations think that we should file a mandatory occurance report every time a level bust occurs even if it doesn't result in an incident. Not as present a bollocking of the pilot if nothing nasty has happened.
this got us onto the subject of why do we have to be the ones who have to be particular about checking readbacks when there is normally one of us talking to 10 or more aircraft all of which have at least two pilots (theoretically listening to our every word?)surely they should get it right more than us?
Which comes to the subject of the title, one of our approach controllers did a small survey of the times a/c didn't give a correct readback or came on frequency and didn't give the correct info (things like hdg,level,cleared level) in a 2 hour period 40 pilots got it wrong!!! If he picked all those up ,perhaps he just might miss one when it is busy.
Then who would be to blame for not getting the readback? Perhaps the pilot should also get some blame for not getting it right in the first place?

[Not Long Now]

Level bust, then yes, file. Wrong readback? Completely agree, it's always our fault for not picking up the one we miss, despite being hectically busy and picking up all(?) the others. Something not quite balanced there... Still, you know who'll get the blame if it goes any further, so keep those ears alert!

[HugMonster]

The fact that there are two pilots up there is pretty much irrelevant to this subject.

You don't know at any particular time that both pilots are listening. One may not even be on the flight deck, or may be listening to VOLMET or ATIS on the other box, may be talking to the pax on PA, or talking to cabin crew (in person or on I/C) or just preoccupied with flying the aircraft.

It may not be good CRM for one pilot to correct another's RT technique - can sour the atmosphere on a flight deck - and so some pilots are reluctant to do so. A good working atmosphere up there is important.

Further, we all make mistakes occasionally. 40 calls in a 2-hour period? Out of how many?

Are you sure it was pilot error? Or is it possible that background noise or interference caused him to mis-hear?

Sorry, but this thread is very intolerant of the problems of other peoples' jobs. I know that some pilots are intolerant of the pressures of your jobs, but that is no excuse to add to it. It is something we all have to work to cure.

[cxi]

Hugmonster
you say that this is intolerant of other peoples jobs, so are your comments!
the forty missed calls were at lhr and that works out to about 50% of all the a/c making a mistake. I get alot on the positions i work as well. These range from a/c not checking in on freq, not giving alt or level climbing to on departure, to having to repeat yourself continualy to pilots in the tma below fl150 where there are the maximum a/c changing levels. Yes I get the blame if I miss one wrong readback from one a/c(that might be the only one from that a/c) BUT it could be the thritieth or fortieth that session that a controller missed. So how about listening in v busy airspace where there are lots of a/c rather than doing those v important duties such as listening to atis on departure, or telling the passengers about the wx,or the landmarks!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Speaking as a pilot , I've made my fair share of mistakes, and have also heard one or two ATC cock-ups. Surely there are ways to solve this without filing. Two real examples, one my cock-up, one an air-trafficers (the second in comparatively quiet airspace, the first in borderline VMC running parallel to a big lump of class D airspace down to GL)...

ATC: "YYYYY Radar - Gxxxx"
(acknowledged)
ATC: "Gxxxx I'm not certain but think you may be in my airspace, request you turn onto 150° to exit"
Me: "Gxxxx apologies, turning 150 to exit"

And another day...

Me: "ZZZZZ Radar, this is Gxxxx request FIS and I will be routing through your overhead at FL45 at minute 15"
ATC: "Gxxxx, Roger, Flight Information, crossing approved at 2000 on ZZZZ QFE 1025"
Me: "Gxxxx, I can descend if you wish but I am well above your airspace"
ATC: "Gxxxx apologies, continue as you notified, say again Flight Level"

Please forgive the slight artistic license with terminology here, but the point is that neither was a major cock-up and both were sorted out without filing - which in my opinion should be reserved for blantantly unsafe behaviour on either part.

No system is foolproof, that's why we readback in the first place. If unsure (and lets face it we're all unsure occasionally) that's what the magic phrase "say again" is for.

G

[HugMonster]

cxi, I'm not saying pilots are blameless - far from it. I've heard many examples of incorrect RT procedure, some very very minor, some appallingly dangerous.

Nor am I saying that we're under pressure up there and we need you guys to get it right 100% of the time because we can't be bothered to.

However, your original post shows some very basic misunderstandings of what goes on on an aircraft flight deck (for example, not even in theory are we both listening to your every word), and whilst I appreciate that you guys are also under pressure, it does no good to assume that pilots are at fault for RT misunderstandings if you are not.

You say your colleague was talking about LHR APP. Okay - the approach phase of a flight is a VERY busy one on the flight deck.

If all goes smoothly, there a few enough aircraft on frequency that it doesn't get jammed up with people trying to get a word in edgeways, if weather isn't problematical, if atmospheric conditions aren't providing background noise on frequency, if there are no late changes of runway, if the pilots aren't tired after a long flight, if cabin crew aren't interrupting with urgent questions about passenger handling on arrival, if you're not trying to copy down a change in ATIS with significant differences from the previous version, if you haven't inadvertently mis-tuned an approach aid, if both pilots are working well, are well-rested and fully fit, then all can be well.

The occasions on which all of the above are the case are extremely rare.

I was flying this morning. On the climb-out I got our callsign wrong three times in succession. It happens. Does this make it an MOR?

As I say, a little more tolerance and understanding of what goes on on the other end of the RT would help.

I, and many others like me, understand what goes on in your little darkened cupboard, because we've seen it. As Flight Safety Officer for my company, I'm trying to arrange visits for some of my fellow pilots to visit our local ATC unit, to enlighten more of them to your problems. When did you last go for a jumpseat ride?

As I say, if there is a misunderstanding or error, don't assume that, because you are not at fault, the pilots must be.

[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 02 October 2000).]

[cxi]

hugmonster
I am well aware of what goes on in the cockpit I am a pilot, and i fly the jump seat as well. The origional post was that the managers want us to file the reports because they think that the ones they get are the tip of a very large iceberg.
However, when you fly in ltma and you have to wait five minutes to get a word in edge ways because the controller is having to say words twice or three times, or correct numerous readbacks, or just ask for the information that should have been given on first call, it would be nice if you remember that we are just trying to a v busy job and every little bit of help from you is appreciated.
We all make mistakes and miss the odd one or two readbacks BUT if we are getting so many wrong ones the scope for an error is far greater and remember there is only one of us listening to you all. lets hope we get it right everytime or if not lets hope your tcas is working.
p.s We don't work in darkened cupboards thats the gas man!!!

[This message has been edited by cxi (edited 02 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by cxi (edited 02 October 2000).]

[HugMonster]

cxi, you say you're a pilot - have you worked a commercial, 2-crew flight deck? I doubt it.

You claim understanding of what goes on on a flight deck, yet you don't show it from your posts.

All I am saying above is that I appreciate the pressures you guys work under, and could you please admit that we also work under significant pressure at times?

We're not opposition in this game - we're just different members of the same team, trying to get the job done. Let's work towards that, rather than try to point blame at other people for getting it wrong.

The only difference is that you will always walk away from your mistakes - we may not.

[Chatterbox]

I believe that a little tolerance on both sides would not go amiss here.

Sure the average pilot, being human, will miss/misunderstand the odd call. For the same reason the odd controller will miss an incorrect readback or even give an incorrect instruction (they've all done it).

To think that both of the flight crew, or even one of them for that matter (sorry..... joke) is listening is a little green, the same as I don't believe that any controller can honestly say that they listen to the whole of every single readback (if you do then I apologise and take my hat off to you).

We seem to have lost the ability to talk to each other. I seem to remember that every pilot has access to a phone after they land....... just the same as the controller is contactable if needed.

Failing that or even better.....
Pilots get out of your aircraft and go visit air traffic (not just at your base station), and maybe even have a go. You just might see why you are not always #1. You may even and see why ATC would be a great job if it wasn't for pilots and aircraft.
Contollers, maybe you should try getting on the flight deck and watch them work their arse off doing AMS to LHR with a strong tail wind and then getting stuffed on the approach too high, too fast and far too close to that 747 ahead.

As Bob Hoskins once said
"It's good to talk"

[Flanker]

cxi-A question

Do you and your colleagues feel that pilots radio discipline is getting worse and if so,over what time period has it been noticeable?

[cxi]

to hugmonster, hook, line and sinker. You are one of the few who care enough to come to this forum and give the other side! There are alot of atcos who never get into an airplane except to go on holiday, our management do not encourage us to spend time with aircrew( we have fam flights in our own time without recompense) and the placing of atc centres is not conducive to going to the ops rooms to chat to pilots.But some airlines do have policies to get over the r/t problems I have highlighted e.g.
Just check bma, they have a policy that if only one pilot hears an instruction from atc they must get a confirmation from atc when the other pilot is listening again.
I will say it again, we are v busy and we do get alot of wrong readbacks, the ones that we miss sometimes get written about in the press or tv. Yes we do walk away to be vilified by everyone for making that one mistake but in the worst situation we at least get to walk away.
We are all human, I know you are busy in the cockpit on final etc and after takeoff and in the initial climb too but I will say it again there is only one of us listening to a frequency with alot of a/c on it and we are human and make mistakes. Why can't you just come on the frequency and give the information that is required such as "london this is XXX123, passing XXX, climbing flXXX, hdg XXX" instead of hello london this is XXX123 and leaving us to guess the rest or ask you for it
not too much to ask is it?

As for the other question about r/t we have all noticed the number of inexperienced pilots now out there flying around,just as there are alot of inexperienced atcos controlling, yes r/t does seem to be poorer than a few years ago but I'm sure that with a few pointers from the more experienced amongst us it will get better!
and if any of you want to come to latcc to see what a busy friday evening looks and sounds like from the other side we welcome you with open arms!

[This message has been edited by cxi (edited 03 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by cxi (edited 03 October 2000).]

[Not Long Now]

Everyone makes mistakes, but I don't think that's the point. When pilots first call doesn't contain the information it's supposed to, we waste time having to ask for it. Example today, Ryanair out of Stansted called me and said "RYRXXX, hello.".Hello indeed, but what about the fact you were told by the last controller to report your heading, and you're always supposed to report cleared level? So I then say, as I am obliged to do, "what is your cleared level?", get the response, and look elsewhere at some other aircraft. Then a minute later "RYRXXX still on heading 305, any chance direct Trent?" Well I'm afraid I didn't know you were on a heading, did I!

Having to make extra calls doesn't help anyone, and if we aren't told all the information we're supposed to be, it's a pain that's all.

PS I love all pilots

[HugMonster]

Not Long Now, unfortunately a lot of pilots are under the misapprehension that each sector controller sits adjacent to the next one and that the strip just gets passed across with all details on it.

Yes, I KNOW you said "Report routing to XXXXXX on 1nn.nn" but they still think that.

As has already been observed, a good argument for pilots seeing what actually goes on at their local ATCC.

Perhaps all airlines should include such a visit as part of induction training and recurrent CRM courses? Would be a bit expensive in lost rosters, but might be worth it in the long run...

[Grandad Flyer]

I agree in part. With initial calls, particularly when annotated on the SID or STAR giving a list of what to say "on first call with ATC" there is no excuse for a pilot not to say all that. Personally I admit that sometimes, if busy or very tired, and the frequency is busy I forget to say everything that is required, but in general I do say everything. I think people have got out of the habit of a proper RT call, for example giving passing levels, as when we don't give it it is rarely asked for.
I have to say that it is mainly the more experienced pilots I have heard giving not enough info on their RT calls.
I have heard major mistakes by ATC and also told ATC complete rubbish (sorry!!).

But what you are saying I think is how to improve the situation, which is worth thinking about.
The little survey that was carried out, did it have a longer term aim?
Is it mainly certain airlines?
Would it be worth doing an official survey on different frequencies to count the number of mistakes on both sides?
If it is found that it is particular airlines that more frequently give wrong calls, or particular calls that are generally wrong, then something could be done.
Perhaps there could be more liaison between ATC and airlines (I'm thinking Air Safety Officer or Chief Pilots here). Something like a monthly bulletin giving an idea of how widespread the problem is and perhaps including a "notice" to pilots that could be circulated, highlighting one particular aspect.
Our company already does that on a very small scale, for example when there was a noticeable increase in level busts, we had posters in the crew room and also a notice sent to all pilots reminding them to check what was heard, and if there was any doubt at all, to confirm with ATC the cleared level and our SOPs reflect this.
I think this could be extended and improve RT but would probably need a little bit of funding. Perhaps the CAA would get involved?
For many pilots, the only RT "training" they get is when they get their first RT licence with their PPL. Many of those pilots didn't even have to do a separate "licence" it was included if you had had to speak on the radio during the flight test, so they have never had any training in RT calls.
Luckily I had already had some exposure to operating in controlled airspace and in busy environments and found the transition to airline flying RT OK. But there is no training or ongoing training at all, which may help to explain some of the problem - pilots aren't taught what they should say, and there is little RT discipline.

I think this discussion needs to move onto what we can do to improve the situation not blaming each other.

[bookworm]

I think there are two very different issues here.

'Incorrect' readbacks are simply part of the communications process. It's always tempting to assume that the other party can hear exactly what you can hear. Unfortunately, that's not the nature of radio-telephony. While you might have clearly said 'fower tousand feet' (you did say 'fower tousand feet' and not 'four thousand feet' right? :)), the person at the other end of the connection might get a broken transmission, heard a weak, distorted transmission, or your transmission might have been stepped on by someone you can't even hear. That's the chief motivation for mandating readbacks. Every good communications system has an error correction system to catch problems in the physical layer. If you need it in the modem connecting you to PPrune, how much more so in a voice-comms environment.

Why does the controller get the blame for not catching the readback? The controller is the one issuing the safety-critical information in the first place. If the pilot were to initiate the transmission of a safety-critical number over RT, the pilot should be expected to check for a satisfactory readback. There are few cases when that happens (and AFAIK no compulsory readbacks from controllers), so it tends to look as if the controller has to do all the checking.

That's somewhat distinct from the wrong information being given on first call. No excuse for failing to pass the heading to the next controller when asked. While it may be standard in LATCC for first contact to include cleared level, I can't find any guidance in PANS-RAC for the information to be passed. It seems like a good idea, but spare a thought for the people who have to deal with several different and sometimes conflicting conventions during the course of a flight. There are plenty of places where a long intro is regarded as unnecessary and poor form.

[cxi]

Hugmonster and grandad flyer are quite right.
there is alot of misunderstandings about how the atc system works and it would be a good idea for visits to be part of the training,(for nats atc cadets there is already a course on airline awareness run by ba).

The other part about incorrect readbacks and "forgetful calls" again ,just like level busts a few years ago,these events have been ignored because the have not been percieved as a problem until now. However, almost every day someone at work is saying that they had these problems, it is just a matter of time till something happens especially with the increasing numbers of a/c trying to operate with less delays due to "commercial pressure"
Finally as the one giving safety related instrutions in airspace where i am responsible for providing seperation yes I have to obtain a correct readback but it is becoming more difficult to do this when there are so many wrong readbacks and omitted reports coming to me

[HugMonster]

Well, maybe before too long (after all the dust from RVSM and 833 spacing has settled) when we'll all have to have ACARS to use Class D airspace.

Checking readback, in the meantime, is important. Just as a computer does a read-after-write check to make sure what was intended got there, you guys need to make sure that we heard what you said. Yes, I appreciate it will make your job a lot easier if we're as conscientious as possible about doing our job properly. But that will still not absolve you from checking readbacks.

On the co-operation front, I was on the phone to the SATCO of my local unit this morning, arranging visits by our drivers, 3 at a time, to see what goes on over there, reissuing the invitation to the jumpseat for them, and asking about the date of the next emergency training day.

The invitation to the jumpseat has long been there to them - but I've never known it to be taken up. Why not? You can't just sit up there in the VCR and complain that we don't get it right - come and see for yourself possible reasons why we're not getting it right.

I've also getting into arrangements with the military for similar exchange visits, since a lot of our traffic operates in areas where they like to play, and that is happening. It's a question of the will for it to happen, I guess.

[Jedi Master]

HugMonster, to reiterate a point.......ATCOs who go on jump seat rides do it in their OWN time and sometimes we are just a bit too tired to drive often long distances at our own expense and lose a precious day off when we receive little thanks for doing it.
There is even the slight but undeniable risk of being unable to attend work the next day due to an aircraft going tech.

On a positive note your attitude to visiting "the other side of the microphone" is refreshingly welcome.
Happy landings.

[cleared2land 27left]

Just to point out re-atcos in the jumpseat. I love fam flights, but the general opinion of some (senior/old age) atcos at my unit is that i am a spotter if i take them up. However i feel that they are extremely valuable, not only to see the other side of the game but what your unit is really like to fly into.

[tHUDddd]

Jedi, pilots who visit ATC units also do it in their own time - you think we're rostered for it?

[Genghis the Engineer]

At the risk of stating the bindlingly obvious, we're all aviation professionals.

As an Engineer (the day job) I spent 3 of the 7 years it took to qualify completely unpaid, most pilots run up fairly enormous debts qualifying - anybody who is not prepared to spend a chunk of their own time and even money maintaining or improving their own professional standards doesn't deserve the title.

This applies, in my opinion, to any professional, whether they're an aviator, doctor or footballer...

G

[yakkity]

A very interesting string.
But one point that comes out i think would be an extra crew member in the flight deck!
Especially in the Approach to landing phase of the flight.
Any reason why the cabin crew on a long haul flight can't get the cabin secured prior to top of descent, therefore ridding those niggly little interruptions in the final phases of flight.
We are all human and do miss or say the wrong thing at times, however with the advent of the modern cockpit , i feel sadly that airmanship IS now almost secondary.This is more to the fact that there are less people in the cockpit and therefore the workload does increase a little.......

[HugMonster]

yakkity, you make a very good point and then spoil it.

Yes, a third pair of ears (and eyes) on the flight deck is very useful. Those who have flown with FE's will know just how useful they can be.

However, the prime purpose of Cabin Crew is for the safety of the passengers. If we have undercarriage collapse on landing, their function is to get the punters out fast. For that they need to be in the cabin, each at his or her post, by the doors.

Okay, I hear you say, what about someone who is only on the flight deck for take-off, approach and landing, and helps the cabin service at other times? Now we're talking about carrying an extra crew member, with weight penalties, higher crew costs, etc. etc.

As I say, good point, but then you blew it.

[10W]

Interesting thread.

cxi

As with any safety campaign it's important to gather the evidence of the size of the problem as well as the circumstances. This allows the problems, and trends in any particular culprits, to be identifed and tackled. So I would have to agree that reporting is a good thing.

As to why we have to check, well, it's team game with safety being paramount. We provide part of the checking process. How many of us have caught a wrong readback ? All of us I bet. And each one we catch is preventing a possible incident or accident.

The alternative is to go the way of the USA where the responsibility for reading back correctly lies totally with the pilot. Indeed I think they are in breach of the FARs (like our ANO) if they do not get it right and leave themselves open to action by the FAA. I'm not sure that a sort of 'blame culture' is any help in tackling the real problems. People will tend to keep quiet if they think they can get away with it.

I too have contacted a survey for our unit, looking specifically at departure transmissions. There were 100 aircraft in the sample (lets me work out percentages more easily that way !!). Whilst I don't have the exact figures to hand, less than 25% got the call correct, with varying levels of data omission all the way down to someone passing only the callsign.

So what ? some pilots may say. Well, before I can do anything with you I need to identify you. And if you haven't given me your cleared level I also need to either pass you a revised clearance level (but of course I probably can't do that since you're not identified) or confirm the SID altitude. And I need to check the Mode C against your reported level. Now if you've not given me that information there are going to be a couple of calls while we sort it all out........by which time you're levelling your Scruggs wonderjet at 6000', carrying out level off checks, setting power, etc, only for me to then clear you to climb again. Now just think, if the call had been made correctly in the first place that scenario would not have happened, saving me work, you work, and being more comfortable for the SLF down the back.

hugmonster

You make fair points about monitoring by both crew, it just ain't going to happen all the time. But on your mishearing vs pilot error, there is nothing connected with that in the traffic I examined. It was the pilot's first transmission. The format is laid out in the AIP and as such is a requirement. It also appears in the CAA Safety Sense leaflet. So is it laziness, lack of practice, lack of training ?? Who knows.

But proper RT and more importantly readbacks are all part of making the system safer. I can almost hear the audible groans in the cockpit when I ask someone to read something back properly without clipping it, using gash phrases, etc. Well I'm not embarrassed to do it. It puts my neck in the clear, as well as the other pilots around our indisciplined colleague.

We are regularly monitored by our SRG Inspectors at random using recordings of frequencies and telephones. We soon get to know about the things which the ATC people do wrong and we have to provide SRG with evidence that we will deal with the problem, either through awareness, further training for the individual or whatever. It would be nice to think that SRG Flight Ops do the same, although I suspect their prescence on the flight deck instantly brings everyone up to book standard, at least for that individual flight. Perhaps Flight Ops should also take random recordings and begin pulling up offenders on the cockpit side ?? I know it smacks of 'big brother' but how else will the authorities be able to realise just how big this thing is ??

I endorse your views on visits by both sides, especially since there is a perception that controllers sit together. you would need very long arms when things are being transferred between London, Scottish and Manchester :)

I would however guard against ACARS, or more correctly CPDLC, being a panacea. It is not infallible and still suffers from human input error. We have several occurences of crews using the wrong callsign when requesting. Fortunately the circumstances have been such that the error is quickly picked up, for example the request from the supposed aircraft is made under a callsign which has already passed through the airspace or has totally different route details which do not stack up with what we expect. Until we 'hard wire' the system so that the crew have no way of inputting the flight number, this is always a possibility and one which might get a little embarrassing http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Grandad Flyer

I think your more formal survey would be useful but only if someone like SRG then took the evidence back to the airlines and made them do something about it. I know that we have done similar campaigns for Level Busts...in fact your DFO was there ;) So that's probably why you got all the Level Bust stuff !! The campaign illustrated the classic 80:20 rule. 80% 0f the level busts were caused by 20% of the operators. So it makes a lot of sense to home in on these guys.

bookworm

The UK requirement is not specific to LATCC. It appears in the AIP and is valid for first contact with all UK ATC Centres. Whilst I agree that it can't be easy remembering each countries specific rules, it's not really a valid excuse. The information is usually there somewhere, be it in a country briefing note (like Jepps) or on the chart to remind you. A good Ops department might also play a part in making sure that crews are aware of local rules ?



------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]

[Buffy Summers]

I've been to LATCC and also to the tower at the airport where I am based.
Perhaps ATCOs could lobby for fam flights to be rostered, even if they are not paid.
We get one LATCC visit rostered if we want to go (and I am amazed the number of pilots who can't be bothered). Anything else is in our time.
I flew an ATCO back from hols recently, he requested the jumpseat and we were more than happy to oblige. It was very interesting for him to discover just what we find irritating, things he told us that were recommended practice for ATCOs that they didn't do, (like, "descend 3000 feet, speed 180, when you are doing 250 and trying very hard to get the height off). When we came within a couple of seconds of going around due to an ATCO in the tower he realised just what it is like for us. It was actually a very useful sector for him to be on. We had a good chat about a few things.
We now have a pilot representative who liaises with ATC over any matters, ideas flow in both directions.
But back to Grandad Flyer's point about what we can do to improve the situation, I think there are things that can be done, making airlines more aware, giving ATCOs rostered fam flights, and more.
Its no good just whinging about it.

[atc_ring]

The real issue here is avoiding communication gaps between ATC and a/c pilots.
There is an ongoing debate on this subject and I have recently bought this very interesting book from Amazon:
[b]FATAL WORDS -Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes.
Author: Steven Cushing (University of Chicago Press)

...it might come in handy.

------------------
...time danaos et dona ferentes

[This message has been edited by atc_ring (edited 04 October 2000).]

[HugMonster]

Souonds interesting, atc - can you tell us a bit more?

And BTW - your signature should be timeo not time - he was saying "I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts", not giving the order to fear them... :)

[Jedi Master]

tHUDdd

Your airline might not roster it but some others do.

At the end of the day a lot of what are perceived to be problems are down to one side or the other not being aware of the others' operating procedures or problems.
The more we talk the better it gets.

---------------------------------------------
As a wise Jedi once said.....
One in Kate Bush is worth two in the hand.

[cogwheel]

There are far too many readback requirements.

ICAO lay down what they believe is required.

Many pilots and controllers use too many words and often it all gets readback 'cause the pilot is not in a position to work out what is required and what is not... especially in international ops.

No pilot in a multicrew flightdeck should accept a level change if BOTH pilot are not in the loop and copied the instruction. Being on the PA or elsewhere is justification for standby or say again. Common sense and a requirement with many airlines.

[atc_ring]

HugMonster,

...regarding "time Danaos..."etc, it is most probably "time", since in Greek it goes: "Fobou tous Danaous kai dora ferontes".
"Fobou" comes from fobos=fear, and it's in the imperative sense.

After all, these were the famous words of the old wise (..I forget the name!) high-priest of Troy, admonishing his people about the dangers of carrying the "Trojan horse" (left by the Greeks, standing before the gates, with a bellyful of warriors inside...) through the city gates!
And, as the poem goes, later that night when all was quiet, the intruders slipped out from their hideout to open wide the gates for the Greek soldiers....
(...group, please excuse the historical detour)

------------------
...time danaos et dona ferentes

[fweeeeep]

Hello Mike !!!

Without refering exactly to who I am making reference....

It's nice to see that you are also here.

My Dad always said it was....
"Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts"

[HugMonster]

If it's the imperative, then unless he was adressing only one person it should be timete...

Sorry - just illustrating that one doesn't receive a classical education, one suffers from it... feel free to ignore me!

[cxi]

who's this dona ferentes girl anyway?

[atc_ring]

Hi fweeeeep,
I suppose you're ....FW? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

------------------
...time danaos et dona ferentes

[This message has been edited by atc_ring (edited 06 October 2000).]

[HugMonster]

I think she and I once.... nahhh! Surely can't be the same???

[fweeeeep]

Hiya atc_ring,

FW ??? ???

no, but try again, this time closer to HOME !!! atcHOME

HaHaHaHa

[atc_ring]

Hey, atchome....
nice to see you around! :)
BTW....still waiting for ring navtool change to activate your page...

Dona Ferentes? ...must be puertorican jive for Dona Summer!

------------------
...time danaos et dona ferentes